ITAT Chennai Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal held that the payments made to ICS, London, further the charitable purpose of education and qualify as a valid application of income within India under Section 11(1)(a), as the benefits accrue to Indian students within India. It also found that foreign exchange losses incurred on transactions integral to the educational activities of the trust are allowable. The Tribunal distinguished the assessee's case from precedents where payments were for activities conducted abroad.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erroneously passed the appellate order by copying and pasting an order from a different assessment year without considering the relevant facts and grounds. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte due to assessee's non-compliance. Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed with a significant delay of 539 days and without a condonation petition. Despite multiple notices, there was no representation from the assessee. Therefore, the appeal could not be admitted.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the assessee claimed to have evidence of charitable activities which could not be furnished earlier. Considering the interest of justice, the ITAT remitted both matters (registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5)) back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present all relevant documents and clarify its objectives and activities.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to ICS, London, for examination, exemption fees, and license fees were in furtherance of the charitable purpose of education and constituted a valid application of income within India. The disallowance by the Assessing Officer was found to be erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to ICS, London, for books, examination fees, and license fees were in furtherance of the charitable purpose of education and constituted a valid application of income in India. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was therefore erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal, as the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) before the CCIT, Coimbatore, and the delay had been condoned. The impugned order was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 2 Crores. It noted that Shri Seetharaman had already declared Rs. 2.90 Crores as income for subsequent years related to the loan, and the AO cannot adopt conflicting positions for the same transaction. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee's name was not mentioned in the seized material, making the addition against the assessee untenable.

The Tribunal held that authenticated documents like the Tahsildar's certificate and the Dean of Forestry's report cannot be ignored in favor of unverified Google Earth Pro images. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to ICS, London, for examination, exemption, and license fees were in furtherance of the charitable purpose of education and constituted a valid application of income in India. The foreign exchange loss incurred on transactions integral to educational activities was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that payments made to ICS, London for examination, exemption, and license fees, along with books, further the charitable purpose of education and constitute a valid application of income within India under Section 11(1)(a). The benefits, both tangible and intangible, accrue within India, distinguishing this case from NASSCOM. Consequently, the foreign exchange loss incurred on these integral educational transactions is also allowable. The AO was directed to entertain and consider any carry forward claim if not originally made.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case and submit necessary details before the CIT(E) to prove the charitable objective of its activities. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's submission of medical issues and unawareness. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to make necessary compliances.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 63 days, considering the explanation provided in the affidavit. On merits, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, citing principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 63 days. While the assessee raised a legal ground that the notice under Section 148 was void and that the land sold was agricultural, they also conceded to non-compliance before the lower authorities. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as the appeal was dismissed on grounds of delay without deciding on merits. The assessee is to be given an opportunity to be heard and to provide evidence.

The Tribunal found that a new clause (iv) had been inserted into Section 80G(5) by the Finance Act, 2024, which allowed applications to be made at any time after commencement of activities. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application in light of this amended provision, providing an opportunity for a hearing.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment and not automatic. Given that the issue of PE was debatable, as evidenced by High Court admission of appeal and the MAP terms where authorities agreed to disagree, the assessee acted on a bonafide belief. Therefore, imposing penalty for under-reporting was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's sporadic land transactions over several years, without any development or continuous pattern, did not amount to an adventure in trade. The surplus arising from the sale of land was to be considered as capital gains.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order based on the remand report without giving the assessee an opportunity to rebut the findings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and produce necessary documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 216 days considering the facts and circumstances and the assessee's bonafide belief. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings and are not automatic. Citing Section 270A(6)(a) and previous decisions, the Tribunal found that the assessee had a bona fide belief and had disclosed material facts. The debate regarding the existence of a PE, coupled with the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) settlement, indicated that the issue was debatable, thus not warranting penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear and pursue the appeal. However, considering principles of natural justice, the case was restored to the AO to provide the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 154 days, noting it was not inordinate and was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is provided with reasonable opportunity of hearing and to produce necessary documents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to present her case before the Assessing Officer, who passed an ex parte order. While the Revenue argued for dismissal, the Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in adding the entire capital gains to the assessee's total income. Only the unutilized amount of capital gains should be added back for taxation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding merit in the assessee's claim of unawareness of the impugned order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, with an opportunity for the assessee to submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal found that the legal issue regarding the reopening of assessment was raised for the first time and had not been raised before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, considering the pendency of similar issues before the Supreme Court and the favorable decisions in the case of the assessee's major shareholder (ITPO), directed the CIT(E) to grant registration to the appellant, subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal noted that a new clause (iv) was inserted into the first proviso to Section 80G(5) by the Finance Act, 2024, allowing applications at any time after commencement of activities. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the application in light of this amended provision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 34 days, finding it was not deliberate. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and to consider the issue afresh.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it was not intentional. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with an undertaking from the assessee to comply with requirements.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance should be restricted to 30% under Section 40(a)(ia) as payments were made to residents. Regarding DDT, it was held that DDT is a tax on company profits, not dividend income, and thus the beneficial rate under the DTAA cannot be applied to cap it. Consequently, no refund of excess DDT is allowable.

The Tribunal held that the sale of land by the assessee, considering the sporadic nature of transactions over a long period and the assessee's primary business of manufacturing transformers, did not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade. The surplus arising from the sale was to be treated as capital gain.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and the levy of penalty under Section 270A is not automatic. Considering the debatable nature of the issue and the assessee's bonafide belief, the penalty was not warranted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 642 days, noting the assessee's lack of knowledge regarding the CIT(A)'s order and the procedural nature of the delay. However, since the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for statistical purposes without deciding on merits, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was given an opportunity to present fresh evidence and submissions.

The Tribunal found that the entries in the J-Pack software were primarily for inventory control and related to alloy additions and stock movements, not directly reflecting unaccounted income. The Tribunal also noted that certain income items had already been offered to tax by the director and that the AO's estimation of profit was not justified. The tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a retired government servant, had no other source of income apart from salary and retirement benefits. The cash deposits were likely savings from her retirement benefits and monthly expenses, a common practice for women. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.